Showing posts with label transgender/intergender/intersex experience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transgender/intergender/intersex experience. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

A few concerns, for now: on sexual politics and political identities: Lesbian, Trans, Intergender, Woman

http://goodmenproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/identity-politics.gif
image is from here

I have been challenged lately by a white radical Lesbian colleague. I respect her many years of effort in maintaining Lesbian spaces as sites of anti-heteropatriarchal resistance and woman-centered loving.

In the last several months I have explored issues here related to the matter of trans identity and politics, particularly how and when it intersects with struggles for women's liberation from racist heteropatriarchal harm.

I have also begun to name myself as intergender, which really is just a word I'm using to describe my own history of experience in a particular cultural world where gender is narrowly, violently, and rigidly understood to be this or that: woman or man, girl or boy. Those of us who are intersex, for example, have to place our bodies--surgically traumatised or not--into one of those two political camps. Trans political perspectives mostly reinforce the hierarchy that is presented in liberal queer circles as a binary. "This or that" might appear to be a binary choice. But power is part of the process of determining who and what we are--how power is exercised, how it is understood, and what it is used to accomplish socially and sexually.

This white Lesbian colleague has challenged me to not use the term, or, rather, to take responsibility for how it perpetuates an idea of gender as a binary--men and women, but not as a hierarchy--men over and against women. She has a strong point. I am considering her challenge seriously.

I know I could go to many liberal college campuses and get all kinds of support for calling myself, well, whatever I want to. And, as a male, I have the privileges and entitlements to believe I have a right to do so. This too is a political challenge: to be responsible with my entitlements and privileges, and to not use them to perpetuate realities that harm women across sexuality, region, and race.

Several years ago, before I stumbled upon the term "intergender", I used a different term: ungendered. A Black queer radical feminist challenged me back then about the nonsensical nature of the term--how does anyone grow up in this US society and not become gendered--structurally, institutionally, and personally? Good point. I stopped using the term.

Those of us with lots of entitlements and privileges are encouraged to flee into liberal fantasies about who we are, in my experience. Whites get to think we are unraced; hets get to think their sexuality is natural; men get to think their experience ought to be sufficiently synonymous with human experience, thereby forcing women's experience to be other than human. Those of us with lots of privilege and institutionalised power are encouraged to make things up and them make them real through coercive or terroristic force. When radical women, Lesbian or not, object to the use of coercion and force to maintain heteropatriarchy, liberals and conservatives often object, stating that it is a violation of their rights--their rights to name themselves as they see fit. I support this right for racially and otherwise oppressed people who don't use white, het, and male supremacist force against women, including against Lesbians.

Anyone who positions Radical Lesbians as a signifant enemy force is not living in the world I live in. Every Radical Lesbian I know is so marginalised that she's practically living in isolation. I never, ever see her views presented anywhere unless it is the Radical Lesbian herself who is presenting them; she has no institutional support, usually has no economic support, and is so ostracised by men, by hets, by liberals, by conservatives, and by spokespeople claiming to speak for all trans folks, that I really do wonder what facts or experiences are shaping the view that Radical Lesbians are even a significant force to be reckoned with.

I cannot find many trans-friendly spaces online that are even remotely friendly towards or appreciative of Radical Lesbians. This is presented by liberals, in my experience, as a chicken and the egg phenomenon: if it weren't for those radical lesbians, or radical feminists, or feminist lesbians--almost always white women--spewing anti-trans theories and beliefs about us, then we (trans people--almost always white) would have a much easier time of things.

I believe the privileges and entitlements, or lack thereof, of all concerned ought to be considered and regarded as we negotiate this newest conflict effecting both Lesbian people and trans people.

Here's one way I approach understanding the politics of experience and naming among humans: what are the people of one group doing to mitigate or eliminate horror and terror against oppressed people? What I see is a strongly self-concerned politic, or ethic, operating among the white trans people who are most vocally condemning radicals, lesbians, and feminists. And what I know about the white radical lesbian feminists who are opposed to trans political practice, is that their sphere of concern is decidedly broader and deeper than issues of "gender" and "sex". With Radical Lesbians I see self-concern also, but the analysis is one that brings forth calls to action that take on many if not all the systems of power that main and kill people. Not so with trans activism that is in my view.

This leads me to regard them as more seriously engaged in the business of ending oppression through activist means. I have yet to encounter many trans-identified people who are engaged in radical struggles to end oppression. With the exception of Dean Spade, I don't know any trans people doing this work. Unlike some of my white radical feminist and radical lesbian colleagues, I don't assume this is because they aren't doing that work. I assume it's because they don't have time to blog, to post comments on websites, and also because they don't speak English as a first language and so how the hell would I know what they are doing?

I know radical feminists across race, across region, and across class and sexuality are doing powerful resistance work to fight heterosexism, racism, and patriarchal abuses of women and girls.

I welcome hearing from trans activists who are doing work that is about ending male supremacy, het supremacy, and white supremacy. Who are doing pro-Indigenous work. Who are doing work to end men's violence against everyone and everything. You don't have anything to prove to me. That's not why I welcome knowing about your work. I want to know about it so I can mention it in future posts. Because from my experience thus far, being trans appears to carry with it the stigma of being liberal or conservative when it comes to gender politics. And if that's a deeply problematic association or a woefully erroneous assumption, I'd like to know about the actions you take up as trans activists--I mean not in addition to being trans, but actions you are led to do because you are trans.

Identities that require supporting systems of horror and humiliation are not ones I want to promote here. The identities I most support are those that are inextricable fused to radical liberation struggles as I see them (others will necessarily disagree with me about what constitutes a radical struggle and a liberation struggle).

I'll close with a link to a post about being a woman. It makes clear how one's body is a part of one's self, and how one's self is located in social space where political force is always present. I cannot find much good reason for supporting political viewpoints which want to render these connections faulty, when the fault isn't with the people enduring the connections that are aggressively imposed, not at all chosen.

With thanks to madperiodwoman:

http://madperiodwoman.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/on-being-madperiodwoman/

On with the revolutionary efforts to end white, capitalist, patriarchal, heterosexist, anti-Indigenist, ecocidal oppression.

This remains a pro-woman, pro-Lesbian, pro-Indigenous, anti-racist blog written by someone with lots of male, class, education, region, and white privileges. And if you think that means I hate trans people, well, there's probably not a whole lot I could say to change your mind.

I was welcomed by a colleague to explain a bit about what 'being intergender' means, and to understand how that term renders male supremacy that much more invisible--meaning, the violence of male supremacy becomes that much harder to identify as such. I take to heart that critique and the challenges that come with it.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Domestic Terrorists, Misopedists, and Serial Violators of Women: what terms do you use for these abusers?


WE MUST STOP ABUSIVE MEN 
FROM COMMITTING
image is from here
AGAINST WOMEN 
AT HOME

Change "Domestic Violence"
(Reasoning: too invisibilising of the fact that the primary emergency is horrendously abusive men controlling, dominating, beating, mind-fucking, serial raping, and crushing the wills of women, so...)
To "Domestic Terrorism", "Patriarchal Domestic Terrorism" and "Men Terrorizing Women Domestically"


Change "LGBT" (eliminate GLBT
(Reasoning: total invisibilisation of intersex, intergender, and asexual people; also, finding an acronym that visibilises Two Spirit, Same-Gender Loving, and Non-Gender Conforming--or Gender Non-Conforming--people)
To  "LGBTIA"


Change "pedophilia" and "pedophile"
(Reasoning: no harmer of children should be popularly called "a lover of children" or a "child-lover", so...)
To "misopedia" and "misopedist", or "child hating" and "child-hater", or "child raping" and "child-raper"



Change "Sexual Trafficking and "Sex Trafficking"
(Reasoning: invisibilises the age- and gender-based harm completely)
To "Rapists Trafficking Girls" and "Pimps Trafficking Raped Girls"


Change "Porn Addict" and "Sex Addict"
(Reasoning: Makes the actions seem harmless, like no one is being hurt and oppressed)
To "Serial Violator of Women"

What do you think, readers? Concerns? Questions? Comments? Answers?

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Toward An Ethic and Practice of Responsible Trans Identities and Radical Trans Politics. Featuring Dean Spade on Vimeo


Dean Spade: Trickle-Up Social Justice from BCRW Videos on Vimeo.


A lot of us who are trans are feeling and being silenced in trans community and beyond it for our views about what it means to be trans and for proposing political agendas that aren't centered on promoting the rights only of the most privileged members of our communities.

Some trans people are not allowed to have a voice online or offline (well, unless we have our own blogs or forums); or when we speak our voices are silenced or conversation is shut down immediately; or when our voices are not silenced they are simply written off as "transphobic" as if we aren't trans and don't know when we're promoting responsible and ethical behavior in our own community. The charge that too many of the most vocal trans voices and perspectives (which are not necessarily representative of trans people generally) are misogynistic and antifeminist seems to have about as much clout and impact as when feminists tell men they are being sexist.

See, for more:

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/12/transgender-politics-of-shaming-women.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/01/questioning-m2f-entitlements-that.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/02/who-gets-to-define-women-only-space.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/01/questions-and-challenges-to-my-gay.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2011/01/response-to-transphobic-and-racially.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/12/red-without-blue-since-when-did-lgbt.html

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/12/trying-not-to-hit-below-belt-tricky.html

I'd argue there's a lot of transphobia, racism, and misogyny in the voices and positions promoted by our most elite and privileged trans spokespeople. Far too many trans people who do have a voice online are afraid to call out the privilege and the bigotry for fear of being rejected by the community as transphobes, or whatever other terms are useful in silencing people with radical points of view. What that means, of course, is that those people who are most negatively effected and oppressed by such views--namely, trans people of color across gender, and women across race--are put, yet again, in the position to speak up against this institutionalised oppressive bigotry. The burden for speaking out will usually fall to those who are most harmed and whose energy is often needed to survive day to day, finding ways and means for such survival.

I'd argue one appropriate use of privilege is to speak out in support of and in alliance with the most marginalised, oppressed people in any given community. White conservative to liberal class-privileged, education-privileged, profession-privileged, region-privileged M2F and F2M trans spokespeople are not in any alliance with any radical activists, feminist or otherwise. Nor do they appear to believe in being fully accountable to radical feminists. They appear to hold great disdain for radical feminists, in fact. in this contempt, they are very much like patriarchal men with a glaring exemption: patriarchal het men will beat the shit out of any visibly trans or queer person, and any woman, if they have the opportunity to do so and the reasonable assurance they won't be arrested for it.

I ought not have to warn you to sit down before reading what comes next: het communities, queer communities, and trans communities are usually and generally very racist, misogynistic places. They are not more or less racist and misogynistic than any other community. They also tend to be very conservative to liberal places, politically. Not more or less conservative or liberal than any other places, with the possible exception of places that pride themselves on being ultra-conservative, such as militantly conservative and extremist, terroristic, and fascistic corporate Christian communities.

For the purposes of this post's clarity, and to save my fingers from typing terms like "women raised as girls", I'm going to use the spellings "womyn" and "wimmin" to refer to radical women of color, lesbian women of color, and radical feminist women of any color who are not transgender or transsexual. (Womyn is singular. Wimmin is plural.) These terms are used here also to mean "politically aware women", "women who are conscious of patriarchy and white supremacy as forces of misogynist destruction and oppression"; and women who are not trans. For examples of this usage, please see here (and see the film too, if you haven't yet!! It's awesome):

http://www.blackwomynfilm.com/Home.html

and

http://www.michfest.com/

On this blog, I generally use the term "trans" to mean either someone who is transsexual, transgender, or intergender, and also for anyone who does not identify as a man or as a woman. It ought not be assumed that when I use the term trans it means only the following: F2M post-op transsexuals; M2F post-op transsexuals; or F2M and M2F-identified people. It should go without say, but does not go without saying it over and over again, that most trans people are none of the above. Most of us are not "post-op" for one thing. Most of us are non-op and regardless of what our wishes are for surgeries, and what our values are regarding the medical industrial complex, we do not have access to that particularly racist, misogynistic, and anti-trans institution's practices. An institution which promotes "us" as only M2F and F2M is oppressive to us. A corporate media empire that does the same is also deeply oppressive to us.

Some conservative to liberal trans people and their supporters have tried to make a case that I do not believe trans people are oppressed at all, or that we are not discriminated against. I think we are, but not in the ways spoken of by the most elite and privileged spokespeople in our community. I think, as I've noted elsewhere on this blog, that many trans people are oppressed for the same reasons wimmin are oppressed: because they are not men, and because womanhood is socially despised and denigrated, and also assaulted and dominated by men. As Cerien has made clear in an upcoming post, "cisgender" is a very problematic (erroneous, unethical, and oppressive) term, as it assumes most trans people are identifiable as such, and have chosen to have surgery. Again, most of us have not.

I'll focus on four trans people I know of, for the moment. These people are not all white, are not predominantly middle class or wealthier, and are not F2M or M2F post-op transsexuals. We are, however, all of us, transgender/intergender. We support radical social change, not organised around the viewpoints and perspectives of the most privileged people in any community. We are activists. We do not support conservative and liberal agendas for making room in racist, capitalist patriarchies for "us". We support the dismantling and radical transformation of all institutions and industries that harm people globally, not just "us". We do this with careful attention to the needs of our people. We do this without promoting bigotry against our people. And, we recognise that most of "our people" are completely indistinguishable from "non-trans people".

Most trans people are visually and otherwise indistinguishable from non-trans people. What that means for a term like "cisgender" is that most trans people ARE cisgender. And many "cisgender" people do not have "cisgender privileges". Just ask genderqueer people, butch women, femme men, and many other people who are assumed to be "doing it wrong" when it comes to "being a gendered person".

This is one white elephant in our room that once named, seems to cause the most conservative and liberal trans spokespeople to start running away or verbally throwing stones at those who name it. Speaking now for myself, but with awareness that I am far from alone, I do not support transsexual M2F people publicly and politically identifying as women-with-rights-and-privileges that wimmin don't have. For anyone out there quoting me, make sure you get that sentence exactly right. Because you're likely to assume it is saying a lot that it isn't. If you're not sure what it is and isn't saying, please ask.

As for F2M people, I encourage that population to be fully accountable to all radical wimmin, including, especially, radical lesbian feminist wimmin. That most non-trans men will not accept you doesn't mean that you have a right to expect wimmin to do so.

The call for "acceptance" and "inclusion" and "accommodation" by trans people ought not be aimed disproportionately at wimmin, or be directed at wimmin at all; to place this expectation and demand on wimmin is to practice a very conservative form of patriarchal politics and ethics.

In trans community, offline and online, in the West, I've seen little to no recognition of patriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy as forces used to destroy women. I've seen little to no recognition of these ideologies-in-practice, in society, posing as "what society naturally is". One exceptional person well worth noting: Dean Space, whose excellent radical analysis is available to be both seen and heard on Vimeo, *here*

Something missing in trans community, as far as I can tell, is an open discussion about our responsibilities to wimmin. Yes, to wimmin. Because our oppression, like gay men's, like lesbian wimmin's, like many people of color across gender, is rooted in patriarchal misogyny. That's not the only root, but it is surely one of the thicker ones. And to advocate for it, acquiesce to it, or pretend it isn't a problem for us, is just plain unethical, wrong, and dangerous.

I'd like to put forth the position that "women" are not an oppressor class vis a vis trans people. Men are. And those few trans activists, mostly M2F people with male privileges--not at all representative of trans community, not *at all* representative of pro-feminist trans activists (see Dean Spade on Vimeo), or, well, my blog--are not speaking for me or any trans people I know, ALL of whom are feminist/profeminist and not insistent or demanding that trans people should ***have the right of access*** to womyn/wimmin-only spaces.

I am calling out the classist, racist, and very patriarchal male privileges of some M2F trans people thinking that those very few privileged trans people's views should trump, be statused and esteemed, above wimmin's views and experiences of womanhood AND trans politics. If wimmin find our political projects to be misogynistic, we owe it to wimmin to listen carefully and respectfully, not jump to some conclusion that their very objection makes them transphobic. This is what is currently done, generally, and it is anti-trans and anti-womyn both. It means we create a very privileged wall around ourselves wherein we decide what Truth is, we decide what is misogyny, we decide what is transphobia, as if we don't, each of us, struggle with all those things quite often, if not all the time. How it is we think a few very privileged people would be the wisest among us to name what is oppressive in our community is a feat of mental magic that is as remarkable as it is disturbing.

A topic for us to discuss is "responsible identity in trans community". I think there are a lot of us who choose, basically, to identify as "transgender" or "intergender" and who leave it at that, never claiming "to be a man" or "to be a woman". That's what Dean Spade does; born female-assigned-at-birth, he presents as trans, dressing in more stereotypically "men's" clothes, for comfort--emotional and otherwise. I find that a far more ethically pro-womyn and pro-feminist position than simply reinforcing the binary/hierarchy with notions that people can ONLY be one or the other, and so, then, it would follow that ALL trans people ARE one or the other. Many trans people I know (for political reasons or for other reasons) reject that imperative from the elitist spokespeople who grapped the mic and won't let us speak about our own experiences and ways of understanding ourselves.

This politic of promoting the existence of only men or women, fitting trans people into one or the other group, is utterly oppressive to intersex people and intergender people. Also oppressive to intersex people is a politic that promotes surgery and body modification as a solution to our structural problems. Eradicating the gender binary/hierarchy ought to be our aim; not simply fitting ourselves into an oppressive gender regime. I accept that almost all people, het or not, queer or not, trans or not, intersex or not, will necessarily accommodate the dominant system in some ways. We have few options for rejecting those values and demands entirely. But that form of survival-accommodation need not comprise the core of our political will and movement.

Trans experience is very diverse. On this blog I have called out some women and men for promoting ideas that being "trans" means being M2F post-op and misogynistic, for example.  But given who controls the stage of trans discourse, who handles the mic, it is no wonder that so many wimmin do come to the conclusion that "trans" means only that. It is also many wimmin's experience that some trans people--the ones identifiable as such--are misogynists and anti-feminist. As are, of course, most people generally. I don't assume that trans people will be or even should be less misogynistic than, say, people who aren't trans. I would like to think that gay and lesbian people are less homophobic and lesbophobic that het people, but that's not an assumption that tends to match up well with reality. So it goes for trans folks. And anyone else who is socially despised or grossly misunderstood.

This is all partly to say that, yes, of course trans people, when socially identifiable as such, are discriminated against and oppressed. But the question is this: what are we oppressed FOR and AS? We are oppressed FOR not being enough of what white het male supremacist people and their values and institutions tell us we should be, and we are discriminated against if and when we appear to be trans, gay, lesbian, or, often enough, too feminine or a womyn. We're not discriminated against or oppressed for other reasons, AS trans people, if we're identifiable socially as trans people. And, another point I've made on this blog is that most trans people who ARE visibly trans, are not read as "trans" as much as we're read as genderqueer or as women, or as men who are trying to pretend to be women. Gay men in drag are beaten not for being gay, exactly, but for being men who are appearing to be a woman. The beating and harassment is directed at men who appear to value looking like what stereotypical "women" look like. Most men's drag (whether the men are het, bi, or gay) is about as accurate a depiction of what wimmin look like a white minstrel show performers' depictions and impersonations of Black people. Drag is a profoundly racist, classist, misogynistic practice.  But don't tell that to gay men who value it or you'll be called homophobic. Never mind that it's grossly racist and misogynistic. White boys will do what white boys want to do, whatever age they are.

So it goes with the white, elitist, privileged, academic pseudo-spokespeople for the trans community. They not only don't give a shit about supporting radical feminism, lesbian feminism, or any other progressive to radical social change movements and practices. They actively oppose feminism, anti-racism, and anti-capitalist efforts and campaigns. They are socially conservative, appearing at times to be liberal. This only demonstrates that the line between patriarchal white conservatism and patriarchal white liberalism is far thinner than either group wants to admit.

Being trans doesn't usually mean we dress in any kind of non-traditional drag. It doesn't usually mean we seek out hormones or surgery. It doesn't have to mean we support the gender hierarchy posing as a binary. It ought not mean we support CRAP. And I welcome effective organisation of our voices of radical dissent, into books, into videos, and into the dominant media and medical establishment, if possible. It's well past time to take the mic out of the hands of the most conservative and liberal members of our community; they do not speak for all of us. And their virulent misogyny and anti-feminism needs to be called out, not from the audience but from the stage.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Who Gets To Define "Women-Only Space"? People WITH male privilege, or people WITHOUT male privilege?

image of book cover is from here
[Slightly revised on 2/17/2016.]

That non-trans people, and liberals generally, cannot see the importance or value of women raised as girls choosing to be in (FAAB) women-only spaces is about as male supremacist as it gets. It's right up there, ideologically, with demanding that girls and women be sexually available visually and physically, for and with men. It's right up there, politically, with demanding that girls and women who are not trans be forced to do ANYTHING AT ALL, to accommodate, accept, acquiesce to, show adoration for, show deference to, submit to, subordinate oneself to people who are not women-raised-as-girls and who never, ever, had institutionalised, socially recognised male supremacist privileges and entitlements. Such privileges and entitlements are not "chosen" and handed back; they are given, embedded, and held onto including when one doesn't wish to express and enact them: just ask ANY pro-feminist man who seeks to be in respectful partnership with women, but finds himself behaving "like a man with male privileges" much to his own dismay. These entitlements and forms of gendered power are acted out unconsciously and consciously both. They are not cast off just because, for example, gay men decide to dress up in misogynistic ways and call this action "dressing up like a woman" for a drag ball. We all know (I hope) what that appropriation of womanhood is called: men's misogyny, the gay version.

There are two groups of people who currently identify as Women: one group has no choice about whether they do so (this would be most of the world's women--most of the world's people). They can call themselves anything that want, in whatever language that borrows from the white male supremacist worldview on sex and gender, and men will still target them for harassment and rape based on what men believe about who someone is and what they are for. That group of women has been marked as female, or as girls, since birth (whether or not they were; some may be intersex), they were raised as girls (or the non-English term that is comparable), and they have been socially positioned, structurally, institutionally and interpersonally, as women relative to (read: beneath; read: for) men. I realise that different cultures define these terms and enforce these categories differently, and I do not assume that how we do this in North America is how it is done everywhere else. I know that there are differences even within white-dominated/white-majority countries that use English (whether as a first, second, third, fourth, or fifth-plus language) about what it meant by "gender". But the political group, globalised, called (in English) women-not-men is disproportionately sexually subordinated globally, if not universally. This is accomplished in the home where girls far more than boys (at least twice as often) are incested by male family members who think girls exist for men's sexually violative and exploitive pleasure (read: child molestation and rape). That group is supposed to be socially subordinated from day one until one's last day. Independently of what gender or sex they feel like inside. And that sexual abuse, and so many other factors, shape how we experience gender in ourselves.

Then there's another group, relatively new on the scene, historically/herstorically speaking: trans women. This group has had some male privileges, are raised to be boys, are socially interacted with and treated (or mistreated) as boys; all of that happens independently of what the children felt like inside, or, even, whether they were male: some are intersex. They are categorised they way they were socially positioned in patriarchy to be categorised.

Some girls got more gender-related abuse than others. Some boys get more abuse than other boys, of course. Males without race and class privileges have had a different experience and less social power and privilege overall than those with race and class privileges. And girls without race and class privilege have had it even tougher. This is structural political reality. The fact that "some women" have more privileges than "some men" doesn't make that structural reality non-existent; men are positioned and trained to subordinate women the women of their ethnic and economic group. And beyond.

That rich white women in the West have more of some forms of power and privilege than poor Brown and Black men in many poor countries is obvious. And any man, if given the opportunity, can still rape any woman, regardless of her race, class, or region. Those who rape who are white and rich will likely never be charged or prosecuted; they will rarely to never see time in jail. Men who rape white women, if they are not white, are far more likely to be incarcerated; this is true of Black and Brown people across gender--incarceration is a form of gross racist social control. But this doesn't make men's rape of women not terroristic across race and class. I have known women of all colors battered by white men and battered by men of color. Battery is a key form of gendered dominance and destruction; the fact that gay and lesbian couples also practice this abuse doesn't make it "not male supremacist". It doesn't make it "just human and ungendered".

So what's going on now is that people--mostly gender liberals and gender conservatives, mostly NON-trans people, are rushing the gates of women raised as girls' [lack of] rights to define, defend, protect, and empower themselves. The gate-rushers (is there even a gate?) do so to defend the rights of those who have had or still have male privilege. These pro-male voices are flooding liberal spaces DEMANDING that women raised as girls MUST ACCOMMODATE AND ACCEPT some or all male-privileged people as only women in WOMEN-ONLY SPACES. Do women raised as girls get to be treated as ONLY HUMAN ever (and not as gendered at all)? Do women raised as girls have the social privileges, entitlements, and power to tell everyone else "who I am REALLY"? No. Not so much. But some Western radical feminists, often but not always lesbian-identified would like to think that might be possible to both define and defend such spaces, now that male supremacy and male domination of women has been challenged in the West for at least forty years. Ah, but never put it past liberal and conservative forces to fight back, hard.

This whole Western assault on women/wimmin-only space by people who are behaving in the most GLARINGLY pro-patriarchal ways is, in the view of this blogger, socially conservative and oppressive and controlling to women raised as girls. I see it that way based on what women/wimmin tell me. And based on what I see happening to radical feminism, lesbian feminism, and wimmin-only spaces in the last fifteen years. They are under social assault, as they always have been. But now there's a new contingent of people (liberals who are pro-trans), who are making liberal arguments for why it is women raised as girls ought not have spaces that are only for women raised as girls.

How ISN'T that male domination at work? In what ways isn't that a function and expression of  male domination? Does radical feminism, lesbian feminism, and women's liberation get supported in spaces where men and male-privileged people are allowed in to? Not in my experience, with few exceptions. Male supremacy and male dominance never take a holiday, unlike the super-privileged men who possess the social power to name other people's realities.

This erosion of wimmin-only space is, far more often than not, in my view, a man-infestation of male supremacy. I radically support women's autonomy and independence from men, interpersonally; I stand with women and wimmin who desire and demand wimmin-only spaces and community. Anyone who defends men's power and privileges to encroach on women's and girls' lives is behaving in an anti-woman way, in my view. More power to any woman raised as a girl who wants to create woman/wimmin-only spaces that are exclusively for women raised as girls--or for "women" as she defines the terms--not as male-privileged people define them. More power to radical lesbian feminists who want or demand radical lesbian feminist-only spaces, as the radical lesbian-feminists define their terms. This is not an oppressor-group, anywhere in the world. Male privileged people rule globally, if not universally. And people raised as boys were raised with male privileges; some boys, in growing into adulthood, have lost some of those privileges, or never acquired some of them, because they were socially perceived as a girl, "acting like a girl", or because they are perceived as being a woman. But males, of whatever gender identity, can and do learn male privileges and practice male entitlements without feeling either like a boy or like a man. I've seen woman-identified trans people use male privilege and entitlements, and power, over and against lesbian feminists. And I stand with women raised as girls who are lesbian and feminist when this happens.

This message has been brought to you by someone who is TRANS and INTERgender-identified. By someone who was marked as a boy, raised to be a boy, never felt like a boy, resisted the training, and guess what? I got lots of male privileges and entitlements just the same that my female family members didn't get. Now, how many of those gender conservatives and gender liberals will come to defend MY position on this? I'm male-privileged, so surely that means my point of view matters more than any woman raised as a girl, right? (Wrong.) Surely because I'm trans, academic queer circles will listen to and respect me more than any radical lesbian feminist, right? I'd put money on it.

I'll add that I have not been to Twisty's blog recently nor have I read what she's written on this subject. I support her organising her blog however she wishes to. The views expressed below by me are my own. They have been deeply shaped and informed by my commitment to women-raised-as-girls in their efforts to radically transform (eradicate) patriarchy--in all its manifestations (liberal and otherwise). On with the revolution for women's and girls' liberation from men, male supremacy, and male domination!

To anyone who wishes to comment HERE: patriarchally conservative to liberal arguments about how people with male privilege should have the power to determine who women may congregate with (over and against the expressed wishes and demands of women raised as girls) are not likely to be published. This is a radical profeminist blog, as the title rather blatantly infers. Take your liberalism and conservatism practically everywhere else on Earth, online and offline. I'm sure you'll find plenty of patriarchs and misogynists to support your perspective and politics. And plenty of liberal queer folks and non-queer folks too. This is what we will see, and this is what we have been seeing: a systematic assault against woman-only spaces, where "woman" means someone raised as a girl for the purposes of existing as a woman for men to exploit,  dominate, and terrorise.

From Feministe:

Twisty nails it on “women-only” spaces


by Jill on 2.10.2011 · 61 comments

in Feminism,Gender,Misogyny,Trans

I do think there’s something to be said for creating women-only spaces, under certain circumstances and for certain purposes. Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy has decided to make her blog all-woman all the time, and received some immediate push-back in the vein of “But what about trans women?” To which I would reply, “Did you see the part where we said this is a women-only space? By definition that includes trans women.” And yet there still seems to be some debate about this? (I use the term “debate” loosely here, because that term implies some sort of actual good-faith argument from two or more sides, and that’s not really what’s happening here). Twisty takes on said “debate,” and it is a thing of beauty. You should read it. I’m a little iffy on the Dworkin bit at the end (Point 3 in particular), but overall it is an excellent post. Just don’t read the comments.

Thanks, Lauren, for the link.
 What follows is my comment, posted to Feministe.

 Julian Real 2.11.2011 at 9:58 am (this has been revised and added to since being posted at Feministe)
 
As a trans/intergender person, I fully support Twisty’s right, and, if she sees it this way, her political obligation, to set up her own blog space as a place that is only for people raised as girls who have grown up and are living their adult lives as women. And as a space that is only for people who, from day one, had their bodies marked as “a member of a class of people who exist for men’s rape”. And, as a space only for people who have never, ever had male privileges, who have never been socialised to be males, boys, or men. Ever. (Regardless of whether they, like me, EVER felt like a boy or a man: I have not.) I would word it that way, if I were going to put such a boundary out on my blog. All the people here who adamantly declare things like “trans women ARE women, and trans men ARE men” are not doing us trans people any favors, and if you’re not trans I am asking you to stop doing so. You are buying into a dangerous binary that makes people one or the other only. Many of us are not: we are trans, we are intergender, we are intersex and some of us choose NOT to identify as women or as men. That goes for many genderqueers too. Stop policing us, please. And, especially STOP speaking for us. We can speak for ourselves!
 
Many of us are neither, and many of us are TRANS-identifed. Would you deny us that identity by forcing us into the “it’s one of the other” camps? Dean Spade is an excellent example of a human being who rejects the binary, who is committed to a non-misogynistic and non-male supremacist politic that is anti-racist, anti-prison, anti-poverty. He self-identifies as TRANS, not as a trans MAN.

In spaces--the few, the very, very few--for people raised as girls who are now woman-identified, he would likely not be welcomed. Such is life. I don't imagine this cuts way down on the spaces he can do his excellent work in. Dean Spade, when born, was identified as female and was raised as a girl. His viewpoint and his politics AS A TRANS PERSON, makes political and social sense to me.

We must keep in mind that many women raised as girls are not accepted into women-only spaces. Audre Lorde has written about this, in Sister Outsider. And it's curious to me how there are people ready to defend male-privileged people's right of access into the spaces of women raised as girls who do not take up that issue.
 The views by many of the commenters on Feministe are so oppressively conservative when it comes to gender; they’re not even liberal. And the idea that some people who grew up with male privileges now get to tell women raised as girls who they can and cannot socialise with is called one thing: same ol’ male domination, all over again. It's the same ol' politic: women, you must accommodate the needs, the wills, the wishes, the demands, of those who were not raised to be subordinated by men from day one.

*          *          *


P.S. I just added another comment at Feministe:

Hi Jill,
 
Here’s my new post on this subject. I welcome respectful engagement by people who, if not trans, don’t pretend to speak for trans people. And from anyone who is deeply respectful of women raised as girls.
 
Who Gets To Define “Women-Only Space”? People WITH male privilege, or people WITHOUT male privilege?  




Friday, December 31, 2010

Toward a Revolutionary Radical Queer Agenda

photo still of Honey, in the film Born in Flames, is from here
Revised on 15 January 2013.

Foreword to the post that follows:
This blog has historically done two things primarily: called out Western white het men's (WHM's) misogyny, racism, and heterosexism, and promoted the activist efforts of radical women of color, Indigenous women, and radical lesbian feminists (groups which are not mutually exclusive). I began to get criticism about my focus on, for example, heterosexual pornography--why would I not discuss gay pornography too? This is one response to that critique:
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2008/10/white-gay-men-marriage-and-prostitution.html

Over the two and a half years this blog has existed, I've increasingly realised how much of a waste of time and energy it is to try and get the most privileged people in society to be accountable to the atrocities they protect and defend as their "rights". I engage very seldom with WHM at this point. As I see it, there's little to no reason to do so: they don't care to listen, to engage, to be respectful, or to even acknowledge the depth and breadth of their power, privileges, and entitlements. If there are white het men who are radically anti-CRAP, let them take up the challenge to confront their brothers. It's not the job of queer and trans folks, women, and people of color (again, significantly overlapping populations), to educate straight folks, men, and whites, respectively.

In the last month or so, especially, I have begun a systematic examination and critique of dominant Western queer culture. Some of this critique has happened in conversation with Theory-Q at the blog Below The Belt. I have been in a process of coming out as intergender, and feel it is the obligation of those of us in trans/intergender circles to call one another out when misogyny, racism, and classism is present in our communities and conversations.

I tend to generate posts based on the issues which are before me and which make clear the relative positions of power various social groups have; it has never been the contention of this blog that anti-feminist, anti-radical transgender women occupy a more oppressive location over and against radical lesbian feminists than do dominant pro-CRAP cisgender men, for example. Nor is my belief that white M2F trans people are oppressed by cis women of color, or by cisgender lesbians, feminist or not. We can and unfortunately do hurt and alienate one another. Because we often share community spaces, we are terribly vulnerable to one another's insensitivity and ignorance. But some of us are also politically threatening, structurally oppressive, and historically and presently murderous in our endeavors. I contend that those most targeted for destruction are people of color--trans and not trans, and females--cis, trans, and intersex. In my lived experience, and based on everything I have learned about the history of humanity, those most politically threatening, structurally oppressive, and historically murderous are white and male.

I'll never have enough time to critique the barbaric and savage practices of WHM--they are endless and on-going with no sign of slowing down. But this blog will likely continue to focus most often on what WHM do that oppresses everyone else or, at least, to place oppressed people's many struggles in the context of seeing how WHM supremacist society shapes how and what we do to survive, and also, hopefully, sooner than later, achieve liberation by placing at the center of our analysis the experiences of girls and women globally, particularly those of color, those who are poor, and those who live in the Third and Fourth Worlds.

Please also see these related posts:
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/12/jumping-into-deep-end-of-gay-jean-pool.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2008/08/prison-and-closet-racism-and.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/radical-african-feminist-patricia.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/08/uses-of-erotic-erotic-as-power-classic.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/08/black-gay-men-and-white-het-male.html 
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-does-pro-sex-mean-and-what-can-one.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-is-gay-sex-pornography-tries-to.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/09/gay-literature-gay-pornography-gay-sex.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/12/trying-not-to-hit-below-belt-tricky.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/transsexuals-transgender-and-radical.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/anti-radical-anti-feminist-alliance.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/11/anti-radical-anti-feminism-in-pro.html
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2010/12/red-without-blue-since-when-did-lgbt.html

The rest of this post was revised on 2 Jan 2010 ECD. With great thanks to ll for all her support and critiques. Further revisions occurred on 15 January 2013.

We understand that Life is imperiled by the ways of the White Het Man, and as his ways are increasingly globalised, made foundational, made to seem functional, made to seem sane, made to seem necessary, made to seem good, moral, natural, and--especially--indispensable and inevitable. We recognise that these ways of being in the world and doing civilisation are structural and political while also cultural, social, and personal.

In societies dominated and ruled by the White Het Man, gender is not what it is in other societies which pre-exist and survive his savage and brutal invasions and occupations of us and our land.

In the societies of the WHM, we endure, resist, challenge, and seek to radically transform gender through the eradication of the institutions and interpersonal practices which bolster and protect it as a cornerstone in WHM society, along with race, region, and class hierarchies.

We ought not seek assimilation into WHM society as our goal, while we understand that some of us will sometimes acquiesce and accommodate for individual survival; also because the dominant society only gives us queer-hating, trans-hating, and woman-hating options for how to survive. But accommodation and acquiescence, assimilation and acceptance, and the defence and enabling of WHM values, systems, and institutions ought not be our collective aim. Radical transformation of WHM society is a process and goal worthy of our time and energy, wherever and whenever we have it to give.

We don't seek transgression of gender as performance; we work for the eradication of gender as power exercised over and against all who are not WHM. The kind of drag show performances white gay men enthusiastically promote as acceptable, which overtly mock and degrade non-trans girls and women as a specific class of gender-oppressed human beings, ought to be challenged not applauded. (These shows are also notoriously racist, classist, pro-prostitution, and pro-child molestation.)

Gender, for WHM, is a structural, political system of subordination, dominated by men, of all beings deemed "female" or "feminine", particularly and especially everyone named "girls" and "women" by men. In the West, the gender system is ruled by WHM, oppressing and stigmatising of all us who are not deemed white enough, heterosexual enough, or manly enough. For our collective survival, we ought not seek to become who they want us to be even while we find ourselves caught in ways of being they want us to learn, practice, and support. The path is never easy. We don't pretend it is.

For survival, we're better off creating safe and loving environments, systems of support-in-community in which to raise our youth; we required dignified care-in-community for our elderly. We don't pretend our ancestors don't exist or don't have spiritual relevance to our current lives. We respect and honor Earth-centered spiritual traditions but do not seek to exploit them, as so many middle-class whites do. We are, many of us, Indigenous. Those of us who are Indigenous have not disappeared. The many forms of exploitation and invisibilisation of our people by non-Native queer and trans people, and by non-Native heterosexuals, is not just problematically racist; it is pro-genocidal.

We seek to undermine and overthrow WHM supremacist systems and practices, and the authority and abuses which inhere in them, to take what is ours, including our land and Ways, and to bring justice and liberation to our people. We do this for the Earth and for all Life, with the assistance of the Earth and all Life. We join with the forests and seas to restore the Earth to a vibrant heavenly place of increasing diversity, not a death-adoring hellish purgatory adorned with pavement and pollution.

We recognise that dominant Religious, Economic, Educational, Medical, Psychiatric, Immigration, and Criminal-Justice practices and policies are historically and presently used against our people, to punish and quarantine us, to silence us and remove us from the population where the people in power live, to take reproductive choice from us, to take capability of feeling sexual pleasure from us, to produce in us a sense of shame and self-hatred, to render us invisible to the powerful and disdainful towards one another.

We understand that among English-speakers and readers, the term "surgery", for many of us without raced, ethnic, economic, educational, gendered, and regionalised power, is not positive; nor is it a desired medical intervention. The very mention of it triggers many of us. It has been used against our bodies in violating and disabling ways. Those who vocally promote surgery as unproblematically "positive" in dominant media are among the most privileged and powerful queer and non-queer people: they do not speak for all of us, while they are part of our community. We ask that those who are most privileged and powerful inside and outside queer community, be responsible to the ways that surgical interventions are used to terrorise and traumatise many of us who are trans, intergender, intersex, or not. We also demand it. This is not to say that non-dominant people do not find reduced levels of emotional and cognitive dissonance with the assistance of the dominant medical establishment; it is to say that this happens in contexts in which traditional Indigenist approaches have been systematically degraded and eliminated from our lives.

We do not consider the promotion of "shopping" for a vagina or breasts to be respectful of those of us who were labeled female at birth, raised as girls, and who are structurally located and socially mistreated as women. Some of us many choose to have surgical procedures that include modifying our genitals. We acknowledge that many who do seek out medical or surgical interventions to alleviate anxieties about gender identity are not transgender or transsexual; many cisgender men and women seek out these surgeries, for example. But the net result is one that promotes and protects, rather than undermines, WHM supremacist power.

There is no indication that liberal Western WHM supremacist societies cannot accommodate M2F and F2M people, as long as they accept the heteropatriarchal standards and practices enforced on everyone, trans or not. And as long as our people, particularly women and transsexual people of any gender, remain subordinate and subservient to those in power, especially sexually in systems of exploitation and rape.

Because most of us who are transgender and transsexual will never be able to afford or otherwise access such surgeries or medical interventions, we must respect the fact that most of us not only do not "pass" as "women" and "men", but many of us do not wish to, even while this decision does not keep us safe from threats and acts of violence and discrimination by non-trans people.

White M2F and F2M transsexual people are a minority population among all trans people; this is not something the dominant media will alert the masses to, because it would mean acknowledging that many of us do not accept or find any kind of emotional-psychic restorative home living inside the confines of a Western white patriarchal gender binary. Those of us who are intergender and transgender, for example, as well as many of us who are transsexual and intersex, are not interested in gender-specific surgeries to change our sexed bodies. Because of this decision to refuse surgical interventions, or simply to not choose them, we are never made visible on talk and chat shows. The general attitude among white liberal non-trans people is this: "I sure hope they can get that top and bottom surgery, so they can fully be a man or a woman". This is not only misogynistic and male supremacist; it is anti-lesbian, anti-intergender, and anti-transgender too. And it is racist and classist, promoting ways of being that are outside of traditional Indigenist and oppressed ethnic worldviews and values.

We understand that the problem with mass corporate media isn't simply that it represents us in stereotypical pro-gender binaried (heteropatriarchal and white male supremacist) ways, but that it doesn't represent or present most of us at all. We also understand that whether we are Black, Brown, Asian, Indigenous, or poor, homeless, trafficked, enslaved, or imprisoned, our experiences are not part of what the dominant society (and its media) imagines "who queer people are".

Access into racist, heterosexist, capitalist, and misogynistic institutions such as marriage and the military ought not be not our aim: why do some of us fight for the right to commit racist atrocities against citizens of the world who are targeted solely because they are Brown, Black, Latina/o, Asian, African, Indigenous and not white and North American, European, and Australian? Why do some of us fight for inclusion in an institution--marriage--that remains dangerous for most cis women, including especially economically disadvantaged women, immigrant women, and women who come from cultures that have other ways of creating intimate unions, families, and communities? Why would we support, in our conscientious activism, the systems and institutions that oppress and kill us, globally. We would we support, in our communities of choice, the ways of WHM that destroy people of color, the poor, women, and the Earth and its many expressions of Life?

While we acknowledge that we each must find our own ways through this life, we aim to honor and respect those without the power of those atop gender, race, class, and region hierarchies. We can demonstrate this respect by not appropriating the names and labels race- and gender-oppressed people cannot escape. We can choose to not call ourselves the names that cisgender girls and women have no choice but to negotiate and endure. We can affirm ourselves as transgender, transsexual, intergender, intersex, asexual, genderqueer and otherwise queer people, along with many names and identities that aren't white-centric, euro-centric, and Anglo-centric. We ought not be required by anyone to use only English terms, Western terms, and non-Indigenous terms to name ourselves.

We can, as gay males, reject the politics of affirming manhood in media and in society-at-large; we can affirm a politic that states and expresses unequivocally that there is nothing wrong with being unmasculine and unmanly; and, in fact, our collective survival depends on het men stopping their masculinist and manly ways. If gay males are ever to be respectful, trusted allies to girls and women's struggles for liberation globally, we must embrace a politic that doesn't promote oppressive manhood.

We must not forget that lesbians and queer women of any color, female or intersex, are oppressed not only for being lesbian and queer; they are oppressed for being female, girls, and women. And most non-heterosexual women are also oppressed by class, race, and region.

Let us reject as inhumane and destructive to our collective humanity the sexual values and practices of WHM supremacist societies. Let us work together to stop erotically or economically valuing domination, subordination, humiliation, and degradation: those values and practices are unbecoming, repressive, oppressive, and hostile to collectivist liberation.

For too long those with race, ethnic, class, region, and gender privileges and power who are queer have dominated and defined our agendas, our approaches to activism, and our erotic and intimate lives. We must keep at the center of our struggles, those of us with the least access to the most power, especially those who are poor, of color, Third and Fourth World, and female. We must do so with accountability to and in alliance with anti-capitalism/militarism/imperialism/colonialism queer activists; with womanist activists; with radical feminist activists--white, of color, lesbian, and queer; and with Indigenous women activists globally.

image is from here

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

"Trans Politics on a neo-Liberal Landscape" (and the Dangers of Trickle-Down Social Justice Movements). THANK YOU, Dean Spade!! (See video here.)



I've been hoping someone would say all this. And now my hopes have come true. Well, they came true when Dean Spade put together this presentation/argument. And here is part of it, above.

And thanks to the commenter below, here is the full speech/video!! Source here: http://vimeo.com/4596216


Dean Spade from BCRW Videos on Vimeo.


This is the full-length video of Dean Spade's lecture, "Trans Politics on a Neoliberal Landscape," delivered on February 9, 2009 at Barnard College. This video was created by the Barnard Center for Research on Women. For additional videos and podcasts of this event and others like it, please visit barnard.edu/​bcrw .

Readers, what do y'all think of what is being said here?

Also, here is Dean Spade's homepage:

http://www.deanspade.net/

Monday, December 13, 2010

Interview with Julian Real on Transgender Realities and Racist Patriarchal Privilege, including the Pretense of Being An Ally With Two-Spirit People

image is from here

Preface to the interview that follows.

The image above is a useful reminder, to me, of what Two-Spirit people endure who must engage with dominant cultures. The challenges for many oppressed groups is to gain visibility by existing within a white male supremacist framework and understanding of gender and queerness. To say that this is a perilous road to visibility, would be an understatement. In one section of the conversation that follows, issues of white appropriation of Indigenous experiences are discussed. The larger conversation is about the politics of the transsexual activism I've witnessed, which may well be not at all representative of what most inter- and trans-gender activists, as well as asexual and intersex activists, are doing in our own political work. I welcome transsexual activists who embrace radical political projects to liberate all women from patriarchal oppression, and any non-Indigenous people who are allies with Indigenous activists, to come forward and introduce yourselves here. I welcome meaningful contact with Indigenous activists and Women's Liberation activists, across gender and ethnicity.

And if you are promoting ideas about gender that are implicitly or explicitly white supremacist, male supremacist, and supportive of Western Civilisation's agenda to destroy the Earth, to murder Indigenous People or steal their land, to pollute their communities with toxins, and to rape women across ethnicity, to subordinate women to men, to promote neo-Liberalism or neo-Conservatism as "progressive" or sustainable, then we are not likely to be allies in our political struggles.

The interview:

(The conversation is between a transsexual interviewer and myself.)

I: You seem to be making a few cases here, and some of them seem in conflict with one another.

JR: That wouldn't surprise me too much, if we're talking about human experience!

I: Do you mean to be saying that there is no such thing as cis gender privilege and that transgender or transsexual experience isn't real?

JR: Please keep in mind I am an intergender person who sees myself as someone who is also transgender, and who would have been transsexual were it not for the clarity of vision of radical feminists, most of them lesbian, who noted with astonishing clarity and incisiveness what is political and social (not "biological" or "natural" (meaning here, asocial and ahistorical) about gender-in-CRAP. I grew up in an era where the radical political project was to challenge to the core the fundaments and falsehoods of patriarchal worldviews, to note how what I term CRAP is deeply misogynistic, racist, rapist, genocidal and gynocidal. That it is also ecocidal has been increasingly discussed and revealed in the last thirty years, although any Indigenous group facing both ecocide and genocide has been telling us this for a very long time. It's only because white men like Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio are speaking out that some whites are paying attention.

I: You often drift off subject when it comes to matters of gender, I notice.

JR: What I'm trying to do is note that discussions of gender are not inseparable from discussions about race and the well-being of the Earth. Just ask Dr. Vandana Shiva--her books and work is all about noting these connections. You can't preserve CRAP and have health on the planet. You can't preserve CRAP and have liberty for women. You can't preserve CRAP and have white supremacy come to an end. The point is that pollution harms women, and so is woman-hating and gynocidal. Racism harms women and so is woman-hating and gynocidal. So too with all forms of environmental destruction and racism. I follow a fairly straight-forward understanding of such things, named quite simply by Andrea Dworkin: If it hurts women, feminists are against it. Or, in my case, "If it hurts women, profeminists are against it." And "women" is a gendered class of people at the bottom of a gender hierarchy, as CRAP determines such political realities. Women at the bottom means there is an oppressor-class and that class of people isn't women.

This is what I find so deeply misogynistic about much of what I see on and offline in discussions among transgender and transsexual people--that the anger about not being accepted or understood is primarily directed at women, not men. When it is overwhelmingly the case that transsexual and transgender people are not oppressed by women, and that much--if not all--of what trans people say is oppressive to them, or is a privilege we don't have, is also true of most women on Earth. And many of the privileges trans people have, the ones who are speaking for all of us, especially, are privileges women don't have.

I won't be so foolish as to pretend, as some ridiculously misogynistic men do, that women are in charge of male supremacist society, or that women oppress, marginalise, and stigmatise some people with male privileges.

I: But you do acknowledge, many times, that white women can and do oppress women of color, structurally.

JR: Yes, as the rich, irrespective of gender, oppress the poor. But, if you'll notice, "the rich" are overwhelmingly men, and white. And "the poor" are overwhelmingly women, and of color. So these things are not different phenomena, even while of course people occupy various positions in several hierarchies, depending on where they are located by race, class, age, region, religion, ethnicity, levels of ability, gender, sexuality, and so on.

I: So then you would acknowledge that SOME non-trans women do oppress SOME trans women?

JR: I will say that the realities that are transgender and transsexual experience are not understood very well by anyone at all, including those of us who are transgender and transsexual. I've had one transsexual visitor to this blog tell me ze is not transgender. Most transsexual people I know consider themselves under the social-political umbrella "transgender". So who is "right" about that? Who gets to decide who is right? We don't have leaders here. What we have are some VERY privileged transsexuals claiming to speak for all of us, laying down the social law, so to speak, about what is and is not privileged behavior, all the while ignoring how much of what these few transsexual activists say and do reeks of male privilege--unowned, unacknowledged, and irresponsibly acted out. If a group of marginalised and misunderstood people wishes to put forth understandings of our experience, the way to do it isn't to be misogynistic, racist, classist, and arrogant.

I: Is that what you think of transsexual activists?

JR: What I see too often, and usually, is that transsexual activists are targeting women as "the problem" population, when it is so clearly always men who are the problem oppressors of all of us. Why isn't that obvious to those of us who are transgender and transsexual, I wonder? Whose interests are served by being a patriarchy-denier? Whose interests are served by denying that men rule the world as we know it? A transsexual visitor here has stated again and again a very neo-liberal, individualistic view of gender, wherein individuals place themselves subjectively in a hierarchy, and proclaim that "non-trans women" are oppressive or marginalising to them. So what's the political project then? To bad-mouth women? To criticise non-trans women? Where's the part where you take on the powers that be? Where's the part where you challenge male supremacy and white het men's domination of all other people, all other life, including the Earth.

I simply think the political viewpoints expressed by some transsexual activists--disproportionately people who were not ever girls, btw--disproportionately by people who have had or still have male privileges girls and non-trans women never have had--are misguided and misogynistic. This blog calls out misogyny. Why would I not call out the misogyny of a population of people with some male privileges, past or present? Why would you want me to let that population of misogynists and anti-feminists out of view?

I: Because by your own admission, transsexuals aren't in charge. Non-trans men are.

JR: Yes, and I try and make that very point in every post I do about the subject. And the reason to take on the misogyny and patriarchal BS in what some trans people put forth is because it is being used as a wedge against women, to bolster male privileges and male supremacy, which in CRAP means also bolstering white supremacy and genocide. If you give a shit at all about genocide--including, of course the fact that over half of Indigenous people are, from a white Western viewpoint, females, girls, and women--why are you promoting a politic that protects Western Civilisation, that pretends it isn't what it is? That pretends that it isn't full of CRAP? That pretends it doesn't need complete composting ASAP?

If you give a shit about oppression, of any group, why would you target another oppressed group as THE people who are hurting you most? When there's no way that can be the case, structurally or socially. If you believe non-trans women are your primary enemy, then you're delusional about the role and power non-trans men have to destroy us all.

This is an activist blog, not an academic one. So I don't entertain much in the way of BS ridiculous pomo thinking about gender. I don't entertain much about modernist thinking about gender either, which holds it to be naturally binary, and inevitably male supremacist. Let's please not forget that: Modernism is grossly tyrannical when it comes to gender oppression. Modernism is the ideological view created by white men that puts white men at the center of the universe. Post-modernism, at best, challenges that viewpoint, arguing that white men's objectivity is SHITE. That's what radical post-modernism does. But liberal pomo theories aren't interested in doing shit about CRAP. And so they simply promote "diversity" of gender, not exposing how gender is a political system of tyranny and destruction. Derrida is often misunderstood, for example. And Foucault, while fucked up in some regards, was doing what Derrida was doing: pointing out how white male supremacist power "lives" in social experiences not usually termed "political", including in text, in writing. That was Derrida's contribution--how white male supremacy lives in text when the authors pretend it is apolitical, or "neutral" on matters of gender and race politics. Derrida said, basically, "BULLSHIT. Here, let me show you where your white male supremacy lives in this text." Foucault said it is bullshit that power is not exchanged in hierarchical ways in social experience. There is no "space" where politics isn't. That was his contribution.

But we now have a whole generation of people raised with very liberal understandings of both Modernism and post-Modernism. We have a whole generation of people who have been taught that radical feminism was and remains "essentialist" even while anti-radical, anti-feminists, trans and not-trans, put forth ideologies and political practices that do nothing at all to challenge the key power-brokers in CRAP. Again, whose interests are served by developing a political framework for understanding gender wherein male supremacy disappears? Where white supremacy disappears? Where anti-Indigenous philosophies and worldviews reign supreme, again?

I: But don't you see how transsexual reality is in keeping with Indigenous views of gender, such as the existence of Two-Spirit people?

JR: This is yet another attempt by whites--and it is primarily very privileged white people--to appropriate aspects of the cultures of many ethnic groups whites oppress and murder, and pretend there's alliance where in no way does that group (transsexuals) put forth a political plan to work in alliance with Indigenous activists to end Western Civilisation, to compost CRAP, to challenge male supremacy and white supremacy. To even end heterosexism. To even support land rights for Indigenous Peoples. To even support ending the dumping of toxic waste on or near reservation lands. To even find out what the struggles are of Indigenous People around the world. Where is this effort on white transsexual blogs? Where is this demonstration of solidarity on white transgender blogs? It's fucked up white supremacist bullshit to pretend that these transsexual activists are doing anything at all that's "good" for Indigenous people. As someone who has been working in alliance with Indigenous activists for several years, I can tell you that it's nothing more than white privileged racism for white transsexuals to pretend they are being a good ally to Indigenous activists by pretending that they are promoting bieng "Two-Spirit".

As I understand it, in my limited ways, being Two-Spirit isn't even part of a white male supremacist worldview. It isn't one experience. It isn't a way of being that translates easily into what we in the dominant English-speaking West call "sexual orientation" or "gender". It's not the same as being transgender or transsexual, because gender is different when we move out of the dominant WHM supremacist West. It's not our experience. So how can we claim to be promoting something we don't even fucking understand? How can we claim to be allies when we haven't bothered to find out what their political struggles are, for live and liberty?

If the core aim of your political project is to be included into privileged academic Queer spaces, and lesbian feminists spaces, and to be accepted for how you define yourself, and you don't bother to realise that most people don't have the goddamned luxury of naming or defining themselves, or of having their genderedness respected as inviolate, as honorable, as esteemed then in my view your politics are fucking oppressive and murderous, at their core. That's what I'd like to get across. If you are a trans woman, but you bash the hell out of radical feminism as "oppressive", I don't believe you're helping end Western male supremacist oppression. That's my viewpoint.

If your political work as a transgender or transsexual activist, as a trans woman, as a trans man, or neither, isn't inclusive of a view that girls and women everywhere are oppressed by male supremacist socialisation and institutionalised patriarchal power, through globalised economic terrorism, through globalised militarism, through globalised ecocide, gynocide, and genocide, then please tell me what your work is designed to do, and for whom, exactly? So if you care about gendered oppression, and view it has hurtful and harmful, please tell me what you are doing, if you are trans or not, to end globalised white het male supremacy?

I: So do you think transgender and transsexual people exist?

JR: Yes. I do. I am one of the people in that population and I exist. Yes.

I: Do you feel it is important for non-trans people to accept you as you define yourself?

JR: I'll be honest with you. I think it's important for me to be very careful to be responsible with the male privileges I have. And that's a lifelong struggle. And it's very important to me to own when my white privilege is rearing its ugly pale head. And it's important for me to be in solid alliance with half the human population who are girls and women who are not transgender or transsexual, who are being systematically raped, trafficked, and murdered as we speak.

I believe non-trans women should identify me as they experience me. If they experience me as a white or male supremacist, then that's what I am being. You see the difference in the politic? My politics are that globally oppressed people get to name who their oppressors are. And when the oppressors come back and say "Oh, no. You've got it all wrong. Whites are the endangered species! Whites are the threatened race! Men are being oppressed by a female supremacist society! Men are led around on a leash by women's sexuality! The problem is matriarchy! The problem is immigrants of color! The problem is African American people and Native American people wanting reparations!" I just say fuck you, basically. Go fuck yourselves, you self-serving oppressive pricks and bastards.

I: So you don't think transsexuals are an oppressed group?

JR: Not by women, no. By men, yes. But our oppression as transgender and transsexual people isn't structurally distinct or separate from the oppression of non-trans women, gay men, and gender non-conforming people. It's entirely bound up to misogyny and heterosexism. And to pretend otherwise is to be foolish. And it is to participate in political agendas which harm lots of people while pretending we're the only ones being harmed.

I: So what do you think transsexual activists should be doing?

JR: I think we all should be asking ourselves "What is male supremacist about my viewpoints and actions?" "What is white supremacist about them?" "How do our aims and goals for society help Indigenous women become free from white male supremacy's rule?" "In what ways do my own understandings of my experience reflect what CRAP enforces and mandates?"

I: Do your understandings of yourself as an intergender person reflect CRAP's rules and regulations about gender?

JR: My experience, when put through the lens of the views of those who are engaging in life and death radical, revolutionary projects, is seen by me as evidence of what's fucked up about CRAP. And, importantly, I work to not make my understandings of myself as intergender authoritative over non-trans women's experiences of me. That's where I part company with some transsexuals, including the one who has been visiting here a lot, promoting all manner of pro-patriarchal CRAP and neo-Liberal worldviews that are profoundly ignorant of what most girls and women in the world experience as oppression and threats to their lives, without the goddamned privilege of being able to "chose your gender identity".

I part company with that person and others who share in the neo-Liberalism, because I am THAT privileged. I have race, education, and some male supremacist privileges. I have Western cultural privileges, English-speaking privileges. The privilege of age and the privilege of whiteness. I have enough privilege to go into the world I can pretend is mine and tell people I structurally oppress that "You are being oppressive to ME by not honoring how I view myself, as an intergender person!" That's exactly how fucking privileged I am. I am so privileged, in fact, that I can presume and assume that someone might actually take me seriously, and submit to my wishes. And to bring that level of privilege to any non-trans woman, is to be acting out my male supremacist entitlements to demand that non-trans women take my word over their own experience. And that's fundamental to how patriarchy works, folks. That's it in one shriveled testicular nutshell.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

The Trans/Gender Politics of Shaming Women-as-Women, Around and Beyond the Queer, Antifeminist Blogosphere

image of painting, "Women of Amphissa", by Lawrence and Laura Alma-Tadena (1887) is from here
[Note: this post was slightly revised by its author, on 11 Dec. 2010. And again revised on 1 April 2013.]

When I speak here in this post of women, the Anglo-English term (also sometimes spelled wimmin), usually what I am referring to is people who exist in a system where gender is a binaried and hierarchical system of oppressive and brutal power. In such a system, the population of "women", typically and normally--not anecdotally, are defined and depicted this way: 
  • Human beings stereotypically and systematically presented in "great Western art" such as the painting above, as all being all five of these things: heterosexual objects, white, weak, thin, and costumed in flimsy, see-through clothes.When this population is not white, they are presented in additionally stereotypical ways in art and advertising.
  • Human beings born with what is termed by medical professionals to be a vagina and vulva, and not a penis and scrotum, regardless of their hormone or chromosome pattern, and regardless of whether or not the person has a vagina and vulva.
  • Human beings who, when born, may hear declarations of a life sentence of politically subordinate sexual status fused to the phrase, "It's a girl!!"
  • Human beings who are raised to be girls-not-boys, whatever that means across era, region, and culture.
  • Human beings who are seen as the group in the West who "can't throw well" and who are often seen to be not "behaving in an appropriately gendered way" if they are very active in or excel at team sports such as football/soccer, baseball, cricket, and basketball.
  • Human beings who are told to beware of boys.
  • Human beings who are assumed to be doing something negative if, when teenagers, they have lots of sex with other people, or, even, with themselves.
  • Human beings who, it is assumed, if they are "normal", will willingly accept a penis or phallic object somewhere into their body, and that this will occur many times over the course of their lifetime. They will not be termed "perverted" or "queer" for doing this, although they might be termed "loose" and "easy" for doing this with more than one person.
  • Human beings who, from day one through one's last day, are socially-politically targeted as THE MOST APPROPRIATE population to incest and rape when there are multiple (at least two) genders to choose among. When any other gendered person is incested or raped, they are not only seen by the dominant gender as becoming more like "girls and women", but are often targeted for such violation and terrorism because they are too much like girls or women. (As is the case with some gay males, and some genderqueer and transgender people.)
  • Human beings who are molested, incested, and raped twice as much by the time they are 21 as "the other gender".
  • Human beings who, from an early age, are socialised to want to be good mothers or mommies (US) or mummies (UK), primary parents, care-givers to people young and old, attentive and respectful of the needs of others.
  • Human beings who are assumed to exist for "the other gender", "men", or any people who are not women.
  • Human beings who are coerced or forced to be accommodating, accepting, appeasing, attention-giving, submissive, subservient, and subordinated to "the other gender" (in Anglo-English, called "men") in almost all ways, according to "great" religious texts and social custom.
  • Human beings who, during adolescence and through portions of adulthood, bleed out of their genitals, with such bleeding being assumed to be "natural" yet, according to "the other gender" also dirty; these are humans who have products sold to them to absorb the blood and make their genitals smell "fresh" and unnaturally perfumed, like a spring meadow or a floral bouquet, but not at all like human genitals.
  • Human beings who are assumed to exist to get pregnant, whether or not they do and whether or not they can biologically or for other reasons, like, say: the choice not to.
  • Human beings who, when the say they never want children, are not told they are selfish, heartless, and soulless for feeling that way.
  • Human beings who, when they wish to have children, are not violently prevented from doing so by being systematically and forcibly sterilised by allegedly professional medical personnel of "the other gender".
  • Human beings who are assumed to be "bad parents" if they aren't perfect or aren't fully present, as opposed to the members of another gender who are assumed to be bad parents only if they are overtly abusive or never present.
  • Human beings who are ostracised and put down for being selfish, self-absorbed, self-centered, arrogant, egotistical, self-aggrandising, aggressive, and ambitious. (If if goes unnoticed when someone is any of those things regularly, it is usually because the person isn't a "woman".)
  • Human beings who are, on average, paid less for doing comparable work than work done by "the other gender". Or who are not paid at all for doing "women's work".
  • Human beings who do most of the world's work, including hard labor, but are not usually recognised, appreciated, praised, or given million-dollar annual bonuses for doing so. 
  • Human beings who are enslaved, trafficked, and procured for sex-and-violence from "the other gender" because--and only because--the other gender demands it, requires it, and is willing to pay slavers, traffickers, and pimps, to make sure this practice is always available.
  • Human beings who are called the following names routinely, because they act in ways the other gender deems "negative" (meaning, they behave in ways that humans behave irrespective of gender or sexuality): b*tch, c*nt, nag, h*, wh*re, and sl*t.
  • Human beings who aren't hardly ever called "p*ssy-whipped" because they are already assumed to be sufficiently subordinated and degraded, by culture, nature, or G-d, in ways that term blatantly implies.
  • Human beings who, when they witness members of "the other gender" in a gender binary system telling one another "don't be such a girl" or "what are you, a woman?" are reminded of a socially inferior status, a negative stigma, because "the other gender" often feels as if they are being intentionally humiliated, degraded, and insulted.
  • Human beings who, when visibly afraid, are not seen to be acting in ways that shame their whole gender.
  • Human beings who, when socially shamed, are expected, interpersonally and socially, to bend to the will of the shamer, regardless of the shamer's gender.
  • Human beings who, as a group, from day one to their last days, are never systematically and structurally given male supremacist privileges and entitlements.

I hope that's clear. We may note that nothing about the above list "biologises" gender in any "essentialist" way. But neither does it pretend gender, in racist patriarchal societies, is disembodied or can be made surgically. Gendering is a social-structural-political process that begins with day one and continues through to the end of one's days. It's an additive process temporally, but not by adding on parts or taking away parts of one's anatomy. It is not subjective alone, while it is also, obviously, very subjectively experienced. But it is also socially and collectively experienced among and by a group of people designated and treated as girls-then-women by men who oppress them and by the male supremacist systems which keep specifically gendered insults, degradations, and atrocities aimed at girls and women for being girls and women.

The characteristics I want to focus on for this post are the two in bold & italics, above.

When one of two trans-governmentally/internationally/trans-continentally recognised genders shames the other, only one is expected to bend to the will of the gender doing the shaming. EXPECTED to. ASSUMED to. And if they do not, they WILL hear about it. They will hear about it verbally, or they may "hear about it" by being physically assaulted or killed. There are systems of exploitation, coercion, and terrorism socially in place, institutionalised, industrialised, and coded in custom and law, to regulate the degrees to which one gender may refuse the will and wants of the other without penalty or punishment. There's no level playing field here. It doesn't go "both ways".

Let's pretend "A" = men, and "B" = women for the discussion that follows.

For example, if one member of "gender A" wishes to obtain sex from someone they are partnered to and living with who is of the population "gender B" (if in a binary social gender system) and the "B" person says "Not now" repeatedly, it is socially assumed that if this occurs over a period of months, it might be acceptable for "A" to rent out people from whom to obtain sex.

Should "B" do the same thing, they will be considered abnormal for doing so and also will generally be determined to be behaving in a way that is deplorable. Meanwhile, "A" doing exactly the same thing will be assumed to be "only behaving in accordance with the healthy natural needs [of their gender]", as if renting humans for sex had anything at all to do with nature, health, or needs.

Should an "B" person who is partnered to and living with a "A" person, and "B" would like "A" to cook them at least one meal a day for the rest of their time living together, and to wash all their clothes, and to clean their abode, and to do primary child-care if they have children--however they acquire them, that is assumed to be asking a helluva lot. If "A" wants "B" to cook at least one meal a day, and have one's clothes washed, the home cleaned up, the children cared for, it is assumed to be "natural" for things to work that way, or "in keeping with G-d's laws" or the reason the universe creating As and Bs, even while most of human community across culture and history wasn't and isn't organised in this oppressive-to-women way. (CRAP is not universal, and never was. It's rulers and terrorists just want it to be.)

What we can note is there is an entirely different set of expectations and assumptions about the behaviors of these two groups: one is assumed to exist for and perform for, and no disappoint and meet the needs of the other.

Now, I'm snapping this reality into a much smaller circle of humanity, sometimes referred to as "queer community" or LGBTQ" community. When predominantly white gay men got AIDS in the Western world, it was lesbians and other gay men, and bisexuals, and heterosexual women, who took care of them. Heterosexual men, by and large, did not. When AIDS shifted from primarily infecting and killing whites to infecting and killing people of color, and from primarily infecting and killing men to doing the same to women, we may note that white gay and het men are not the populations of people who do the caring and attending to the needs of those afflicted and infected.

Now I'm snapping us back into the larger human community.

When it comes to providing care, interpersonally or socially, one group is expected to care for the other: women are expected to care for men. The expectation is backed up with manipulative and coercive or overtly violent, aggressive force.

When it comes to "making space" or "accommodating" one group, it only works one way: those without B privileges and entitlements are expected to make space for and accommodate the needs, wishes, wants, and whims, of A people.

Now I'm going to snap us into a more complex sexed and gendered reality--a society in which there are people born and heralded with comments like "It's a boy!!!", who are raised to be boys, who are also socialised to be men, but who may never have felt like a boy or a man. And, those brought into the world hearing (if not yet understanding) "It's a girl!!!", who are then raised to be girls, and who are also socialised to be women, but who never felt like a girl or a woman. We'll call these people "transsexual", "transgender", and "intergender".

Note: Some of these people may also be intersex, but being intersex doesn't distinguish "trans" and "intergender" people from "non-trans" and "non-intergender" people.

What I've observed in queer and non-queer communities is this: that the group "women" as identified atop this post, are expected to be accommodating to "everyone else" including transgender and transsexual people, regardless of how the trans people experience and name their own genders and sexes.When shame is applied systematically as a tool for coercion, it only works one way, usually, with few exceptions, which I'll get to in a moment.

If any woman refuses to accept how non-women (as identified above, atop this post) identify themselves, they are assumed to be behaving in cruel, bigoted, insensitive, callous, and contemptuous ways. There is social permission on the blogosphere to systematically shame that population (often termed "cis women" or "cisgender women") or any portion of that population, who refuses to bend to the will and wishes of trans people.

Question: If any man refuses to accept how trans people identify themselves, well, you know, they're men. So what'd'ya gonna do?
Answer: You focus back on those horrible women who won't accept you.

Question: If you want social services, such as rape-trauma support counseling and other resources for surviving rape, and men, as a class, refuse to offer you any, what'd'ya gonna do?
Answer: You focus on women who you expect to open their services for one another, to you.

Question: If non-trans men gather in ways that are exclusive--"men-only"--and you want to attend as a transgender or transsexual person, and they don't want you there, what'd'ya gonna do?
Answer: Focus on getting women to be "accommodating" and "accessible" and "accepting" and "tolerant" and "understanding" and "congenial". Because Lorde knows those men aren't gonna be any of those things, usually, as a class of gendered people.

The man and male supremacy that shows up through socialisation, structural conditioning, and learned political entitlements dictates which political groups are expected to accommodate others, or which groups will be systematically threatened, harassed, bullied, violated, and/or terrorised if they don't accept other groups.

This is what I see happening on the internet, and off of it: the political group "women", as defined above, is assumed to be a group that WILL accommodate the needs and wishes and wants of non-women, including when some members of the non-women identify as women.

And this is where the politics of shame and force really kick into high gear. Should some women refuse to accept that some people with some conditioned/structurally "gifted" male supremacist entitlements and privileges, acquired or afforded in childhood or beyond it, those women will be shamed, ridiculed, called misogynistic names, and be threatened in various ways, with at the very least insult, degradation, and derision. They won't simply be "critiqued" for not accepting and accommodating the needs and wishes of trans people. Which political group may only be critiqued, but usually not also systematically shamed harassed, insulted, degraded, ridiculed, called nasty/derogatory gender-specific names, and threatened or terrorised? Men.

I'm calling out the sexual/gender politics, racist and misogynistic to the core, of some women being targeted on transsexual and transgender blogs (on the blogs of people who have had some male privileges or entitlements for part of their lives) for such derision and misogynist bigotry, when most men are not. If that's not misogyny and sexism in action, pray tell, what is it?

I've been calling out the sexual/gender politics, racist and misogynistic to the core, of men being sexist to women, of men being insulting and degrading to women, of men being threatening and terroristic to women.

The politics of this blog call for anyone with male supremacist privileges, past or present, and anyone with male supremacist entitlements, past or present, to be called out as sexist and misogynist, if not also racist, when they target "only women" for derision and ridicule.

I've seen several radical lesbian feminists (including Sheila Jeffreys, Mary Daly, Germaine Greer, Janice Raymond, and the women of blog, AROOO), most of them white, some of them Black, be regarded as nothing more than bigots and b*tches for not accommodating to the wishes and needs of trans people. I can link to their blogs and specific posts in which they rail against these women. And I see no comparable complaints or targeting of MEN, of men who are writers and activists, of men who are bloggers, for behaving in non-accommodating and non-accepting and "intolerant" ways. What's up with that?

If that isn't a form of gross misogyny online, what is it?

Nothing in this post should be assumed to render non-existent many different forms of experiencing gender dysphoria; and nothing about what is above denies intersex conditions of being. For those who don't know, I am intergender. I have never felt like a boy or a girl when young, or like a man or a woman when an adult. I know that transsexual people have experiences of self-in-society that I do not have. I don't presume to know what those are, but I can, through listening, empathise with many of the experiences I hear about.

As noted, gender within a racist patriarchal context--in the personal and social spaces I term "CRAP"--is a category of social-structural-political meaning. It has connections to human physiology and expectations about what one's body exists to do, but not in any logical or absolute ways. What being "a woman" is, has varied with culture and era. Being a woman isn't one experience. But neither is it completely undefinable. It is not abstract, the way too many post-structuralist/pomo theorists pretend it is.

A woman friend of mine was raped a couple of years ago. She experiences pain in specific parts of her body--that pain in her body is part of the trauma and the post-trauma of rape. The meaning of that part of her body is social and personal. The rape of her body shapes her experience of herself in profound ways. And it is not the same experience, exactly, as a male being raped. It isn't not because males being raped is not terrible or horrible or traumatic. It is different because since birth, parts of her body (which is also to say, her being) have been targeted "for rape", and that's part of what she's had to live with--that social-terroristic reality--since birth through to this day.

To promote a political course of action in which one claims as one's individual and group right, the entitlement to name oneself with the primary political term a specifically and horribly oppressed group of people use to name themselves, that is also forced upon them, is to be so grossly insensitive to that condition of being human, that it warrants calling out, as long as it takes for the people to fully and viscerally understand that they are committing an act of misappropriating another political groups' experience and are violating their being through naming themselves as that group. What is called for is significantly more compassionate and non-defensive, non-offencive listening to those women/wimmin who are calling out the misogyny in many trans terms and some transgender and transsexual actions. I must note that the transgender and transsexual people I know offline are sensitive to women's/wimmin's concerns and don't obnoxiously demand to be respected for appropriating them.